LogFAQs > #968400273

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, Database 10 ( 02.17.2022-12-01-2022 ), DB11, DB12, Clear
Topic List
Page List: 1
Topicdid the soviets only defeat germany because of stalin's refusal to surrender?
ElatedVenusaur
09/30/22 3:02:09 PM
#9:


Chunky posted...
had stalin not been in office, whoever was might have surrendered (like most people did) because the odds of winning were unlikely. those who did surrender saw the writing on the wall, but stalin threw everything he possibly could, no matter how much it would cripple the country.
Yeah no, Stalin was an active detriment to the Soviet war effort and it was only after Zhukov went off on him and Stalin started butting out of military affairs more that the war turned decisively in their favor. Zhukov paid dearly for that post-war, of course.

But even so, the Nazis were also poorly-directed and switched objectives with the seasons, failing even to finish off so horribly stricken a city (and so vital a strategic objective) as Leningrad. Only a much more focused strategy and a much more thoroughly prepared force would have had any chance of success, but fascists are definitionally bad at all of those things. Nazi Germany never had much of shot at beating Soviet Russia, and it was mostly a product of Stalins (baseless) stubborn belief that Hitler would honor Molotov-Ribbentrop and the utter mess he made of the Red Army that the Nazis had any shot at all.

---
I'm Queen of Tomorrow baby! Remember: heat from fire, fire from heat!
She/her
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1